As we make the world a smaller place, and still go forth using money there is a deadly trend that comes about. In the past if you waged war, the death you caused was mainly in battle fields or from wounds caused in battle. The civilian deaths tended to be highly localized around places battles took place. In the current world market you have an inter locking network of trade and this brings up a problem to the idea of “civilized wars”. We can ship things around the world but we tend to have more of a regional view point. These regions have grown but only to the point to make this problem what it is...

In the early nineties when The war in Iraq happened the invaders hit key infrastructure points, causing a fast and relatively bloodless victory . That is if you forget or do not look into the fact that Iraq was the largest producer of many medical items. Lack of said items killed many more people than any bomb or gun did in the war. It also lead to death of those that had nothing to do with with the conflict. This happens today when we fight so called small wars. Sending a team or bomb in to destroy a key military target rarely does anything but kill some solders, and set back the enemies plans. It also cause the enemy forces to take items away from civilians. As the saying goes, those with guns are never last in line for bread...

This is not to say we have any less reason to start wars but rather that we have more responsibilities after the battles are over.

This was part of a speech I gave before the UN human right comity last Wednesday. I put down the parts that I think are most interesting to the normal civilian, without putting scandalous numbers.

That's a very interesting set of observations Y.T. I would continue that line of reasoning to include the fact that while the trends continue, the human perceptions of what is "inside" and "outside" has not kept pace with the realities. Look at a recent interchange between Neil Preston and myself. He understandably expressed his frustration at the reception received by Daniel Thunderhawk, but I had to point out his personal perceptions have nothing to do with the realities experienced by the rest us on the planet. Neither the President, my older sister or the stock broker on Wall Street care about how Preston sees his "brother". They care about the idea of a nova conflict developing in the span of moments and leaving staggering loss of life and property in its wake. Ibiza demonstrated the potential of such a conflict and Chicago proved Ibiza was not really unusual.

But would any cure be less worse than that particular disease.

I'm told by my contacts among the municiple defender network of an initiative being shopped around specifically tailored to respond to situations such as what happened in Chicago. Primarily it implies some sort of fast response and transport initiative but what concerns me is the codified system of support by non-military novas that is being discussed. It reminds of the situation that led to the advent of world war one.

I've never met a war I didn't hate. I've always found that there will be unintended crisises and innovative ways found to overcome them. Hope and Suffering are universal, but I could live in a world without the latter.

Welcome to the club kid.

Like or dislike of war shall not change the fact that there is war. Looking at the bigger picture and knowing the full horrors of war may make them less likely to garner support from outside sources, and may bring more relief aid to areas that wile they go unbombed still suffer from damages from the war.

A death from lack of food is just as evil as death from a gun.